flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Bart Martens]

Hi,

Users of Debian "testing" are invited try flashplugin-nonfree version
9.0.21.55.1 from "experimental".  This version installs Flash Player 9
beta [1]. Also a few bugs [2] were fixed.  If you're happy with how bug
387263 [3] was fixed, then please report that on that bug report.

[1]: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer9.html
[2]: 
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=flashplugin-nonfree&include=fixed-in-experimental
[3]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=387263

Users of Debian "stable" still using flashplugin-nonfree 7.0.25-5 are
advised to upgrade to version 7.0.68.0.1~bpo.1 at Backports [4].
Instructions on how to install that version can be found here: [5].

[4]: http://www.backports.org/
[5]: http://wiki.debian.org/FlashPlayer

Your feedback is most welcome, via e-mail to me and via the bug tracking
system.  Thanks in advance,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[ciol]

What is the difference between flashplayer-mozilla (debian-multimedia) 
and flashplugin-nonfree ?



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Jochen Schulz]

Bart Martens:
> 
> Users of Debian "testing" are invited try flashplugin-nonfree version
> 9.0.21.55.1 from "experimental".  This version installs Flash Player 9
> beta [1].

On unstable this appears to work fine. I installed the package from
experimental, searched google for "need flashplayer 8" and found all
websites I tried to be working with current firefox (and without the
aoss workaround in /etc/firefox/firefoxrc).

This is great news, thanks a lot.

Are there plans to package the standalone flash player (gflashplayer) as
well?

J.
-- 
I wish I looked more like a successful person even though I'm a loser.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Marc Shapiro]

Jochen Schulz wrote:


Bart Martens:
 


Users of Debian "testing" are invited try flashplugin-nonfree version
9.0.21.55.1 from "experimental".  This version installs Flash Player 9
beta [1].
   



On unstable this appears to work fine. I installed the package from
experimental, searched google for "need flashplayer 8" and found all
websites I tried to be working with current firefox (and without the
aoss workaround in /etc/firefox/firefoxrc).

This is great news, thanks a lot.
 

What is the likelihood that this will actually make it into Etch before 
the December release?


--
Marc Shapiro

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here.
Boom. Sooner or later ... boom!

- Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Jochen Schulz]

Marc Shapiro:
> 
> What is the likelihood that this will actually make it into Etch before 
> the December release?

What is the likelyhood of etch being released in December? :->

Seriously, I hate to say it, but http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
doesn't look very convincing that the schedule can be met.

J.
-- 
Looking into my eyes is the only way you'll know I'm telling the truth.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Marc Shapiro]

Jochen Schulz wrote:


Marc Shapiro:
 

What is the likelihood that this will actually make it into Etch before 
the December release?
   



What is the likelyhood of etch being released in December? :->

Seriously, I hate to say it, but http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
doesn't look very convincing that the schedule can be met.

J.
 

But, once it does get into Sid, or whatever testing will be, then it is 
almost certain to get backported so that those of us that prefer a 
'stable' machine can get to all the sites that want 'the most current 
version of Flash' which seems to include sites like nickjr.com and 
noggin.com.  Both of these worked until recently, but now I am having 
problems with them, and my daughter (almost 6 years old) really likes 
the games.


--
Marc Shapiro

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here.
Boom. Sooner or later ... boom!

- Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Marc Shapiro]

Marc Shapiro wrote:


Jochen Schulz wrote:


Marc Shapiro:
 

What is the likelihood that this will actually make it into Etch 
before the December release?
  



What is the likelyhood of etch being released in December? :->

Seriously, I hate to say it, but 
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/

doesn't look very convincing that the schedule can be met.

J.
 

But, once it does get into Sid, or whatever testing will be, then it 
is almost certain to get backported so that those of us that prefer a 
'stable' machine can get to all the sites that want 'the most current 
version of Flash' which seems to include sites like nickjr.com and 
noggin.com.  Both of these worked until recently, but now I am having 
problems with them, and my daughter (almost 6 years old) really likes 
the games.


Ooops!  I missed that you were suggesting that Etch would not make the 
December release, and were not referring to Flash Player 9.  Well, if 
Etch takes a little longer then that leaves more4 time for Flash Player 
9 to make it in.  And if not, then there is always backports.


--
Marc Shapiro

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here.
Boom. Sooner or later ... boom!

- Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/31/06 17:50, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Jochen Schulz wrote:
>> Marc Shapiro:
[snip]
> But, once it does get into Sid, or whatever testing will be, then
> it is almost certain to get backported so that those of us that
> prefer a 'stable' machine can get to all the sites that want 'the
> most current version of Flash' which seems to include sites like
> nickjr.com and noggin.com.  Both of these worked until recently,
> but now I am having problems with them, and my daughter (almost 6
> years old) really likes the games.

You could always install it directly from adobe.com.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFR/ghS9HxQb37XmcRAiaUAKC6z7q4IgesvwV5Sut5FVavbWg89QCfWMEK
GWiEDPBlOnxD2MxO9ev6LbE=
=akVJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Marc Shapiro]

Ron Johnson wrote:


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/31/06 17:50, Marc Shapiro wrote:
 


Jochen Schulz wrote:
   


Marc Shapiro:
 


[snip]
 


But, once it does get into Sid, or whatever testing will be, then
it is almost certain to get backported so that those of us that
prefer a 'stable' machine can get to all the sites that want 'the
most current version of Flash' which seems to include sites like
nickjr.com and noggin.com.  Both of these worked until recently,
but now I am having problems with them, and my daughter (almost 6
years old) really likes the games.
   



You could always install it directly from adobe.com.
 


Is it there, now?  It certainly wasn't there a few days ago.

--
Marc Shapiro

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here.
Boom. Sooner or later ... boom!

- Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Jochen Schulz]

Marc Shapiro:
> Marc Shapiro wrote:
>> Jochen Schulz wrote:
>> 
>> But, once it does get into Sid, or whatever testing will be, then it 
>> is almost certain to get backported so that those of us that prefer a 
>> 'stable' machine can get to all the sites that want 'the most current 
>> version of Flash' which seems to include sites like nickjr.com and 
>> noggin.com.  Both of these worked until recently, but now I am having 
>> problems with them, and my daughter (almost 6 years old) really likes 
>> the games.
>> 
> Ooops!  I missed that you were suggesting that Etch would not make the 
> December release, and were not referring to Flash Player 9.

I did refer to FP9, I only mentioned FP8 because I have never seen a
site telling my I need FP9, but there are a couple that reject browsers
with at least FP8.

But what I actually wanted to say: FP is closed-source. I do not think
that there is a way to backport it.

J.
-- 
I am worried that my dreams pale in comparison beside TV docu-soaps.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Marc Shapiro]

Jochen Schulz wrote:


Marc Shapiro:
 


Marc Shapiro wrote:
   


Jochen Schulz wrote:

But, once it does get into Sid, or whatever testing will be, then it 
is almost certain to get backported so that those of us that prefer a 
'stable' machine can get to all the sites that want 'the most current 
version of Flash' which seems to include sites like nickjr.com and 
noggin.com.  Both of these worked until recently, but now I am having 
problems with them, and my daughter (almost 6 years old) really likes 
the games.


 

Ooops!  I missed that you were suggesting that Etch would not make the 
December release, and were not referring to Flash Player 9.
   



I did refer to FP9, I only mentioned FP8 because I have never seen a
site telling my I need FP9, but there are a couple that reject browsers
with at least FP8.

But what I actually wanted to say: FP is closed-source. I do not think
that there is a way to backport it.
 

Right!  My brain slipped.  But if the installer is there for Flash 
Player 9, then where is the actual binary.  I just looked on the adobe 
site, again, and when I go to download Flash Player all it offers me is 
7.0.68.0, which is the same version that I have had installed for what 
seems like forever.


--
Marc Shapiro

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here.
Boom. Sooner or later ... boom!

- Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Greg Folkert]

On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 22:09 -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Jochen Schulz wrote:
> 
> >Marc Shapiro:
> >  
> >
> >>Marc Shapiro wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jochen Schulz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>But, once it does get into Sid, or whatever testing will be, then it 
> >>>is almost certain to get backported so that those of us that prefer a 
> >>>'stable' machine can get to all the sites that want 'the most current 
> >>>version of Flash' which seems to include sites like nickjr.com and 
> >>>noggin.com.  Both of these worked until recently, but now I am having 
> >>>problems with them, and my daughter (almost 6 years old) really likes 
> >>>the games.
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>Ooops!  I missed that you were suggesting that Etch would not make the 
> >>December release, and were not referring to Flash Player 9.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I did refer to FP9, I only mentioned FP8 because I have never seen a
> >site telling my I need FP9, but there are a couple that reject browsers
> >with at least FP8.
> >
> >But what I actually wanted to say: FP is closed-source. I do not think
> >that there is a way to backport it.
> >  
> >
> Right!  My brain slipped.  But if the installer is there for Flash 
> Player 9, then where is the actual binary.  I just looked on the adobe 
> site, again, and when I go to download Flash Player all it offers me is 
> 7.0.68.0, which is the same version that I have had installed for what 
> seems like forever.

Been gone for a while... but I am back.

To answer your question Marc:

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer9.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: flashplugin-nonfree: Flash Player 9 beta

[Edward Shornock (debian ml)]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:49:42PM -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
> >You could always install it directly from adobe.com.
> > 
> >
> Is it there, now?  It certainly wasn't there a few days ago.

Yes, it's at http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer9.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature